3.5 The expert view on the confession

- Maybe you’re right. - We are right. I think, Neale.

Yeah.

And maybe you’re– [END PLAYBACK]

So, Graham, what did you think of that second part of that interview? As someone who’s worked in the area of miscarriages of justice in the past, I’m fascinated to know what you thought of that confession.

I thought it was very problematic. There were so many problems with it, I don’t even know where to start.

Yeah. Well, I certainly noticed quite a few dodgy areas with regard to the rapport. But I’m interested, what did you find problematic?

Well, look, in my view, I think it’s very likely indeed this was actually a false confession. In particular, there were many alarm bells in this second half of the interview that relate to some of the problems involved in the Reid technique. For example, early on in the interview, the suspect is showing visible signs of nerves. And Bullet clearly indicates that he interprets those as actually being signs of anxiety, presumably relating to guilt. However, if I were in Neale’s shoes, I’d be feeling considerable anxiety here, not because I’m guilty, but because I’m being interviewed about the murder of my father.

Yeah.

- Sometimes you don’t need a suspect to speak. Their non-verbal speak for them. - What is that supposed to mean? - Nothing, mate, nothing. Just saying. [END PLAYBACK]

So Bullet had a very clear theory about the non-verbal behaviour that he was seeing. He sees that as evidence as guilt. And what we’re saying is psychologists say there’s loads of other reasons why he could be demonstrating that behaviour.

Yes, there are. Bullet is also showing signs here of what psychologists call maximisation and minimization techniques.

OK. So what would be an example of maximisation?

Well, actually thinking about it, the maximisation was a bit more subtle than the minimization here. But one example would be when Bullet makes a comment such as, “You’re in quite a lot of trouble here.”

Yeah. And what about minimization then?

The minimization is a fundamental problem with this interview, in my opinion. Moreover, it’s clear that Bullet has a particular investigative theory about what happened, which is that Neale has killed his dad following a family altercation and fallout. But the point is he explicitly puts this theory to Neale.

Yeah, quite literally suggests it to him.

And that’s right. He’s minimising when he does it. For example, when he makes comments such as, “Things can turn violent in an instant, can’t they? But that doesn’t necessarily make someone a bad person.” [VIDEO PLAYBACK] - And sometimes when tempers fray over things, things can turn violent in an instant, can’t they? And it doesn’t necessarily make someone a bad person, though, does it, I mean, if that happens to them? [END PLAYBACK]

OK. So it’s not looking great so far. Was there anything else you noticed?

There’s one significant problem, which is that Bullet does most of the talking, which is something we’ve covered previously, but it’s worth reiterating. In fact, not only does Bullet do most of the talking, there are points where he’s putting words into Neale’s mouth. Bullet has a theory about what happened, and he’s continually suggesting that theory to Neale.

Yeah, I completely agree. And I think to the extent to which Bullet is leading the suspect to give a particular version of events means that, to be perfectly honest, he’d be quite lucky to keep his job after this.

I think he would. So what about the rapport then? [VIDEO PLAYBACK] - Like the time in the pub, the affray, you said it was all a blur, didn’t you?

So it’s possible, isn’t it, that you did do it? [END PLAYBACK]

I’m guessing he didn’t exactly cover himself in glory there either?

No. In the first part of it, he was still in that dominant and hostile space, which we know is problematic for rapport. But then he switches his tack, and he becomes this over-friendly, obsequious character, almost trying to pal up with the suspect. And that is problematic, too, because that’s maladaptive cooperative behaviour. So I guess to bring those two things together, the reason that the rapport’s problematic is that there is an oppressive feel from that dominant and hostile behaviour in the lead up to the confession, but also that this kind of overly cooperative behaviour could be interpreted as being coercive. I didn’t enjoy watching that at all.

No, no neither did I.

- No one else wants to hurt your dad, did they? I mean you’ve said, haven’t you? - Yeah. I mean, not that I can think of. [END PLAYBACK]

So as a psychologist, when you see an interview such as this one, is there anything you can do about it?

Yeah. So for me, this is a huge training issue. I mean, we’ve just sat and talked through a number of problem behaviours that we’ve identified psychologically. And I’m quite sure if you got a lawyer in here, they would also notice some problems with regard to the legal side of things. But these things can be addressed with training. At the very least, I think Bullet would need some training interventions.

And maybe that training should include something on psychological knowledge.

Oh, without doubt. But also, there’s psychology in how we communicate these sorts of difficult messages to an interviewer like Bullet. You’ve got to think about the fact that we’ve just sat here and basically said exactly what we think of the interview. We wouldn’t want to put it to Bullet in those terms. And we need to think about the psychology of how those messages were communicated in order to improve his performance next time.

Oh, it sounds like it’s a delicate balance.

It certainly is.